A Brief Introduction on Judicial Review in the United States

A Brief Introduction on Judicial Review in the United States Part I: A Brief Introduction on Judicial ReviewJudicial review is the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review, and possible invalidation, by the judiciary. Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority, such as the terms of a written constitution. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of three branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicial review differs from country to country and state to state. The power of courts of law to review the actions of the executive and legislative branches is called judicial review. Though judicial review is usually associated with the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ultimate judicial authority, it is a power possessed by most federal and state courts of law in the United States. The concept is an American invention. Prior to the early 1800s, no country in the world gave its judicial branch such authority. Part II: Judicial review in the United States

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the constitution itself. At the federal level, there is no power of judicial review explicitly established in the United States Constitution, but the doctrine has been inferred from the structure of that document. At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, five of the thirteen States included some form of judicial review or judicial veto in their state constitutions. Delegates at the Convention, including South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney, spoke out against the doctrine of judicial review. The Constitution states in Article III:

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority....In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. In the United States, the supremacy of national law is established by Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution. Called the Supremacy Clause, it states that “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme law of the land.” It goes on to say that, “judges in every state shall be bound thereby.” This means that state laws may not violate the U.S. constitution and that all state courts must uphold the national law. State courts uphold the national law through judicial review. Famous case

The famous case of Marbury v. Madison(1803) marked the first time the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly explained and justified judicial review. Writing for a unanimous Court, John Marshall, fourth Chief Justice of the U.S., used syllogistic reasoning. Major premise: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and judges take an oath to support it. Minor premise: It falls within the province of the judiciary to interpret the law. Conclusion: Judges must not unassailable. In fact, only two...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...JudicialReview
The Judicial Branch is one of the three branches of government, established in the UnitedStates Constitution. The Judicial Branch is a dual court system consisting of States Courts, and the Federal Courts, each have their specific jurisdiction. The States Courts hear all cases within the State. The Federal Courts only hear cases involving a Federal issue, an appeal from a lower courts decision and cases involving diversity of citizenship. Diversity of citizenship cases involve people from different states, cases that involve a UnitedStates Citizen and a foreign government, or cases that have two states against each other. The Federal and States Courts also have specific court districts within their jurisdictions.
The Federal Courts, Supreme Court is the highest court in The UnitedStates, so all Federal And States Court must abide by their decisions. The Supreme Court checks the Legislative and Executive Branches by determining whether action taken and laws passed by Congress and the President are Constitutional. This authority is known as JudicialReview.
The first time, The Supreme Court used their power of JudicialReview to check the Legislative Branch...

...The United Kingdom as the Most Democratic Country
Anthony Giddens, a sociologist and author, defines democracy as having three core components, “democracy exists where you have a multiparty system with political parties competing with one another, free and non-corrupt voting procedures to elect political leaders, and an effective legal framework of civil liberties or human rights that underlie the mechanisms of voting processes” (Lever). Democracy is a form of government where the supreme power is vested in the people and is exercised directly by the people or by its elected agents. Countries such as Japan, the UnitedStates’, and the United Kingdom, all have democratic forms of government. Judicialreview is a part of democracy where a higher level court can review cases involving laws and make those laws invalid. It is an important part of the checks and balances in a democracy to limit power. Through the power of judicialreview, the Court is charged with assuring citizens’ individual rights as guaranteed to them. Judicialreview is important for democracy, but on the other hand, some feel as though judicialreview is undemocratic. Although the UnitedStates was the first country to practice judicialreview, the...

...pamphlet, in the UnitedStates was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the UnitedStates Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the UnitedStates Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the UnitedStates; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gitlow v. New York exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at...

...JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
JudicialReview: A Double-Edged Sword
1. Traditional theories of judicialreview hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political motives in judicial decision-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled v. political motives in important U.S. Supreme Court constitutional decisions which overturn laws passed by legislatures (such as restrictions on gun ownership, or marijuana use)?
The U.S. Supreme Court justices cannot escape the fact that they are appointed to the Supreme Court by a president with political motivations and enviably will make decisions they feel are principle but might easily been seen political to those who don't share their particular viewpoint or stance. For instance, in the landmark decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn segregation in America’s public schools was based on the case of Brown v. Board of Education which was to challenge and change the racist practice set by state legislatures of ‘separate but equal’ as it related to unfair and unequal school settings for black children in many U.S. states. According to a book review by Cline (2011):
Brown was initially criticized by many as a severe kind of...

...﻿Judicialreview
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about court power over non-judicial branches. For court power over lower courts, see Appellate review.
Judicialreview is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review (and possible invalidation) by the judiciary. A specific court with judicialreview power may annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority (such as the terms of a written constitution). Judicialreview is an example of check and balances in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary checks the other branches of government). This principle is interpreted differently in different jurisdictions, which also have differing views on the different hierarchy of governmental norms. As a result, the procedure and scope of judicialreview may differ from country to country and state to state.
Contents
[hide]
1 General
1.1 Judicialreview of administrative acts
1.2 Judicialreview of primary legislation
1.2.1 Review by general courts
1.2.2 Review by a specialized court
2 Judicialreview in specific jurisdictions
3 See also...

...Bannister Gibson declared that the judicial branch of the government had no right to influence or control the actions of any other branch of the government. Thus, Justice Gibson declared the act of judicialreview unconstitutional and in disagreement with the proper role of the judiciary as inherently defined by the constitution. The proper roles and powers of the judiciary branch of the government, as conveyed to it by the constitution, are subjects of controversy because they upset the balance in power with the other branches of the government. Upon expressing his verdict on judicialreview, Justice Gibson intended to challenge the view of the judiciary as established by Justice John Marshall in 1801, in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Marshall affirmed that judicialreview is the instrument by which the Supreme Court ensures the constitutionality of the acts issued by the legislature and defends the American population against abuses. Hence, the judicial branch is superior to any statute issued by the legislature and it operates by confirming the constitutionality of laws. While the latter has become the popular view of the judiciary, it contradicts with the true duty and power of the judiciary and establishes it as the supreme branch of the government. Furthermore, in his reasoning, Marshall fails to properly consider the legislature’s power and role. Not...

...﻿Adversary System in UnitedStates
The scheme of American jurisprudence wherein a judge or jury renders a decision in a controversy between or among parties who assert contradictory positions during a judicial examination such as a trial, hearing, or other adjudication.
U.S. courtrooms have often been compared to battlefields or playing fields. The adversary system by which legal disputes are settled in the UnitedStates promotes the idea that legal controversies are battles or contests to be fought and won using all available resources.
The contemporary Anglo-American adversary system has gradually evolved, over several hundred years. Early English jury trials were unstructured proceedings in which the judge might act as inquisitor, or even prosecutor, as well as fact finder. Criminal defendants were not allowed to have counsel, to call witnesses, to conduct cross-examination, or to offer affirmative defenses. All types of evidence were allowed, and juries, although supposedly neutral and passive, were actually highly influenced by the judge's remarks and instructions. In fact, before 1670, jurors could be fined or jailed for refusing to follow a judge's directions.
The late 1600s saw the advent of a more modern adversarial system in England and its American colonies. Juries took a more neutral stance, and appellate review, previously unavailable, became possible in some...

...
Immigration and Ethnicity
September 29, 2013
The UnitedStates of Immigrants
The UnitedStates of America is known as “the land of the free”. We are a nation full of immigrants who have traveled from across the globe. Being the most diverse country on Earth, America is where they want to go. But why? Why do people consistently choose America as their destination to live? America was founded on freedom which attracts people from different cuts of life. We take in individuals and give them a chance to thrive. Whether it is with work opportunities, freedom of religion, a better economy or shelter from war and discrimination, the UnitedStates of America is the place to be.
Job opportunities have continuously been one of the greatest push/pull factors in bringing people to America. Since the birth of America, up until very recently, jobs were in high demand because of the rapid growth of our nation. When people in other countries did not have work, they came to America, the land of opportunity. During the 1830’s to the 1880’s, it was dubbed “Old Immigration” when numerous immigrants originating from Northwest and Eastern Europe came to America. From the 1840’s through the 1850’s, mass quantities of Irish immigrants arrived at port cities like New York and Boston for work. Since work was scarce in their home countries, they had agreed to work very hard for long hours with little pay here...